These insane districts in NC were created by democrats for decades upon decades. Heck...I wish they'd redone all the districts again and gotten rid of the absurd Mel Watt's 12th district. But it is what it is.

Some districts got closer...and the democrat districts consolidated. 5th through 11th districts were all closer than the 2010 (pre-redistricting) results. The only obvious shifts to more partisan districts were in the 1st, 4th, and 12th.

Blame the Voting Rights Act of 1965 for some of the district drawing insanity.

While I agree the tax increase will upset a lot...does everyone feel that Social Security, as we know it, be without this 2% funding into current payouts? If you feel the 2% shouldn't be in this, then you're no different than legislators borrowing money against future SS recipients...and the vicious cycle never ends. This is as it's written now. I wish it were different and gut the program and start with something new, but that's not going to happen.

idc really since mcintyre is basically a republican but it is another example

He'll be battling every 2 years. Good. As for redrawn specifically...no. There were many targets. McIntyre was one. Kissell was the other...and strengthening Elmers district. Miller was removed through consolidation of the 1st areas and combining many of Price/Miller's districts (Durham/Orange).

Also, Shuler's district was watered down by splitting up Asheville/surrounding areas.

To the victors go the spoils...and I think the method is genious. It's a reflection of the current political climate while not throwing everything into disarray every 2 years. Where some might disagree with me is that I'd like to see electoral apportionment based on congressional districts. Winners of majority of districts get two sentatorial electorals too. Tie? A senate vote to each.

oh so you would like to move further from some sense of democracy and encourage even more incredibly gerrymandered districts?

Versus winner take-all states? Yes.

Want to make campaigns more receptive to all americans and not those in Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, etc?

Make individual congressional districts the battlefields. When a liberal democrat has to fight tooth and nail for a lone congressional district in California or a republican has to lock up a district like McIntyre district...that's a good thing.

Since when has gerrymandering been a bad thing? When one side feels slighted? As long as the districts are not gerrymandered based on gender, age, race, religous belief...so be it.

Want to make campaigns more receptive to all americans and not those in Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, etc?

Make individual congressional districts the battlefields.

hahaha objectively wrong

want to actually make campaigns more receptive to all americans? go to a popular vote

When a liberal democrat has to fight tooth and nail for a lone congressional district in California or a republican has to lock up a district like McIntyre district...that's a good thing.

lol no "a good thing" would be equal representation. the democratic house candidates took 49.15% of the vote in the house, with republicans taking 48.03%. however, the 113th house will be 46.2% democratic and 53.8% republican. this is problematic, provided you're not an authoritarian

want to actually make campaigns more receptive to all americans? go to a popular vote

Popular vote is assinine as it would be worse than what we have now and just cater to population centers. What's good for Newark, NJ isn't necessarily good for BFE, Idaho.

lol no "a good thing" would be equal representation. the democratic house candidates took 49.15% of the vote in the house, with republicans taking 48.03%. however, the 113th house will be 46.2% democratic and 53.8% republican. this is problematic, provided you're not an authoritarian

States choose their representation through districting. Feds stepped in and tried/succeeded in controlling that in the south. You have a problem with redistricting altogether? How do you propose it's done. It's the United States...not the united state.

As decided by the Great Compromise of 1787, each state is represented by two senators; therefore each state has an equal voice in the Senate. In the House, large states enjoy a numerical advantage in representation, but in the Senate every state—large or small—has equal representation.In creating the Senate, the framers were careful to provide a safeguard against majority rule. Giving the small state of Delaware the same voting power as the large state of Virginia, for example, provided protection for the voice of the minority.Knowing this is crucial to understanding the framers’ design for the Senate, but of equal importance is the number itself. Why two senators? Why not three or four per state? The framers wanted the Senate always to be a comparatively smaller body than the House. This smaller size has allowed the Senate to maintain its more deliberative nature and to persist in its tradition of unlimited debate, including the use of the filibuster, long after the House abolished that privilege in its chamber. Having a smaller body has allowed for flexibility in Senate rules and procedures, and has accommodated the need for secrecy in deliberations on sensitive matters, such as foreign policy.Having a smaller body has meant that each member’s voice can be heard.In Federalist No. 10, James Madison commented that one of the problems to be solved by a new government was “that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an overbearing majority.”As part of the solution, the framers designed a small, deliberative Senate where even a minority of one must be heard.